MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402320967 · doi:10.5376/mgg.2024.15.0014

Utilizing Genetic Diversity for Maize Improvement: Strategies and Success Stories

2024· article· en· W4402320967 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bin Chen, Jiating Hou, Yunfei Cai, Guiyue Wang, Renxiang Cai, Fucheng Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMaize Genomics and Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic diversityDiversity (politics)GeographySociologyAnthropologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilizing genetic diversity for maize improvement is crucial for enhancing agricultural productivity and addressing climate change. As a major global crop, maize's genetic diversity is key to improving disease resistance, stress tolerance, and yield. This study reviews the sources of maize genetic diversity, including wild relatives, landraces, germplasm banks, and synthetic populations, and explores the main strategies for using these resources for maize improvement. These strategies include introgression breeding, heterosis breeding, marker-assisted breeding, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), genomic selection (GS), and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. Through case studies, the study demonstrates the successful application of these strategies in enhancing disease resistance, stress tolerance, nutritional quality, and yield in maize. The aim is to integrate traditional and modern breeding methods to propose future research directions for maize genetic improvement, providing new ideas and methods for maize variety improvement to meet global food demand and agricultural sustainability challenges. The significance of the research lies in providing a scientific basis for increasing maize productivity, economic benefits, and biodiversity conservation, promoting sustainable agricultural development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaize Genomics and GeneticsSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207